The use of social network analysis in innovation studies: Mapping actors and technologies
Tessa van der Valk
TNO Innovation Policy Group & Dutch Genetic Alliance (VSOP), Delft, The Netherlands
Govert Gijsbers
TNO Innovation Policy Group & Dutch Genetic Alliance (VSOP), Delft & Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
PP: 05 - 17
Abstract
The utilization of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in policy development and evaluation is still very limited. The aim of this paper is to identify research themes in innovation that may benefit from the application of SNA, and to examine implications for management and policy that are derived from this application in the academic literature. Three relevant research themes were identified: 1) networks of collaboration; 2) communication networks; and 3) networks of technology. The implications for management and policy and promising directions of further research are discussed.
Keywords
social network analysis; innovation studies; collaboration; communication; technology networks
Article Text
Organisations are increasingly paying attention to the notion of 'open innovation', i.e. making use of knowledge generated outside the organisation in innovation processes and vice versa. As a result, organisations are increasingly organising their access to complementary knowledge in knowledge intensive networks (Grant & Baden-Fuller 2004). Policy makers also emphasize this growing importance of knowledge intensive networks for innovation. As indicated in a very recent (November 2008) Policy Brief of the OECD the increasing organisation of innovation in networks implies that 'the potential for innovation depends on how well knowledge circulates and how well the system is connected: policies to foster or enable the development of world class clusters and networks are thus of growing importance' (OECD 2008: p.7). The importance of networks for innovation was also stressed in a recent report of the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR 2008). More specifically, the structure, strength of the relationships and the nature of a network is said to influence innovation.
The analysis of networks provides a means to aggregate micro-level data and get a grasp on meso-level trends and developments. As concluded from prior research, stimulating network formation and development is often an under utilized opportunity in innovation policy (Kaufmann & Schwartz 2008). However, to devise policy to foster the development of networks, monitoring and evaluation of these networks is necessary. For this, methods to analyse those aspects of innovation networks that are relevant for innovation policy are needed. Measures and concepts deriving from the field of Social Network Analysis (SNA) are likely to be useful in this respect. Until now, these measures have hardly been assessed in policy studies, with the exception of a few studies on the European Framework Program (Breschi & Cusmano 2004). Because of this, the potential contribution of SNA to innovation policy development and evaluation remains unclear.
Moreover, due to the generic nature of many concepts and measures deriving from social network analysis (Kilduff & Tsai 2003), there may be a variety of research themes in the field innovation to which it can make an insightful contribution, next to the quite obvious theme of interorganisational collaborations. This paper aims to address these issues by providing an overview of the contribution of SNA to the academic field of innovation studies. We focus on the academic literature as SNA is increasingly applied here, and it constitutes a primary source for future policy studies to built on. In reviewing this academic literature, we more specifically focus on the implications of its findings for management and policy. The research questions to be answered in this paper are: For what purposes is SNA used in academic publications in the field of innovation studies? What insights have these publications provided, more specifically with regard to management and policy implications?
To answer these questions, this paper starts out with providing an overview of primary concepts in SNA and their relation to innovation. Section 3 gives an overview of the methods used to compile the literature review. Subsequently, a literature review is given of the current state of the art of the use of network analysis in academic literature on innovation.
This literature review consists of a description of the common citation network of the academic publications identified, complemented with a description of the networks studied in these publications. Jointly, these two approaches provide insight into the themes in innovation studies that are addressed in these publications and the implications for policy and management that are derived. Finally, in the discussion and conclusion sections the results obtained are discussed and questions for further research are posed.
Basic concepts in SNA and their relation to innovation
... continues ...
References
Allen J, James A D, and Gamlen P (2007) Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: a case study using social network analysis. R&D Management, 37(3): 179-196.
Balconi M, Breschi S, and Lissoni F (2004) Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1): 127-145.
Balconi M and Laboranti A (2006) University-industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy, 35(10): 1616-1630.
Barabasi A L and Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439): 509-512.
Bekkers R, Duysters G, and Verspagen B (2002) Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM. Research Policy, 31(7): 1141-1161.
Borgatti S P, Everett M G, and Freeman L C (2002) Ucinet 6 for Windows. Analytic Technologies, Harvard.
Breschi S and Cusmano L (2004) Unveiling the texture of a European Research Area: emergence of oligarchic networks under EU Framework Programmes. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(8): 747-772.
Burt R S (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Cantner U and Graf H (2006) The network of innovators in Jena: An application of social network analysis. Research Policy, 35(4): 463-480.
Casper S (2007) How do technology clusters emerge and become sustainable?: Social network formation and inter-firm mobility within the San Diego biotechnology cluster. Research Policy, 36(4): 438-455.
Casper S and Murray F (2005) Careers and clusters: analyzing the career network dynamic of biotechnology clusters. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(1-2): 51-74.
Chang P L and Shih H Y (2005) Comparing patterns of intersectoral innovation diffusion in Taiwan and China: A network analysis. Technovation, 25: 155-169.
Chang S B, Lai K K, and Chang S M (2009) Exploring technology diffusion and classification of business methods: Using the patent citation network. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1): 107-117.
Chiffoleau Y (2005) Learning about innovation through networks: the development of environment-friendly viticulture. Technovation, 25(10): 1193-1204.
Choi C, Kim S, and Park Y (2007) A patent-based cross impact analysis for quantitative estimation of technological impact: The case of information and communication technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(8): 1296-1314.
Clarysse B, Debackere K, and Rappa M A (1996) Modeling the persistence of organizations in an emerging field: the case of hepatitis C. Research Policy, 25(5): 671-687.
Coleman J S (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: 95-120.
Cowan R and Jonard N (2004) Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(8): 1557-1575.
Dahlander L and Wallin M W (2006) A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets. Research Policy, 35(8): 1243-1259.
Dittrich K, Duysters G, and de Man A P (2007) Strategic repositioning by means of alliance networks: The case of IBM. Research Policy, 36(10): 1496-1511.
Doak S and Assimakopoulos D (2007) How forensic scientists learn to investigate cases in practice. R&D Management, 37(2): 113-122.
Ejermo O and Karlsson C (2006) Interregional inventor networks as studied by patent coinventorships. Research Policy, 35(3): 412-430.
Freeman L C (1979) Centrality in social networks, I: conceptual clarifications. Social Networks, 1: 215-239.
Gay B and Dousset B (2005) Innovation and network structural dynamics: Study of the alliance network of a major sector of the biotechnology industry. Research Policy, 34(10): 1457-1475.
Georghiou L and Keenan M (2006) Evaluation of national foresight activities: Assessing rationale, process and impact. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73: 761-777.
Gilding M (2008) The tyranny of distance: Biotechnology networks and clusters in the antipodes. Research Policy, 37(6-7): 1132-1144.
Gilsing V, Nooteboom B, Vanhaverbeke W, Duysters G, and van den Oord A (2008) Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37(10): 1717-1731.
Gilsing V and Nooteboom B (2006) Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 35(1): 1-23.
Giuliani E and Bell M (2005) The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1): 47-68.
Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360-1380.
Grant R M and Baden-Fuller C (2004) A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1): 61-84.
Gulati R and Gargiulo M (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 10(5): 1439-1493.
He J and Hosein Fallah M (2009) Is inventor network structure a predictor of cluster evolution? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1): 91-106.
Jaffe A B, Trajtenberg M, and Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3): 577-598.
Kajikawa Y and Takeda Y (2008) Structure of research on biomass and bio-fuels: A citation-based approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(9): 1349-1359.
Kajikawa Y, Yoshikawa J, Takeda Y, and Matsushima K (2008) Tracking emerging technologies in energy research: Toward a roadmap for sustainable energy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(6): 771-782.
Kaufmann D and Schwartz D (2008) Networking: The "Missing link" in Public R&D support schemes. European Planning Studies, 16(3): 429-440.
Kilduff M and Tsai W (2003) Social Networks and Organisations
Kim M S and Park Y (2008) The changing pattern of industrial technology linkage structure of Korea: Did the ICT industry play a role in the 1980s and 1990s? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, In Press, Corrected Proof
Knoben J, Oerlemans L A G, and Rutten R P J H (2006) Radical changes in inter-organizational network structures: The longitudinal gap. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(4): 390-404.
Knoke D and Kuklinski J. (1982) Network Analysis Sage, London.
Kratzer J, Gemuenden H G, and Lettl C (2008) Revealing dynamics and consequences of fit and misfit between formal and informal networks in multi-institutional product development collaborations. Research Policy, 37(8): 1356-1370.
Lee Y G and Song Y I (2007) Selecting the key research areas in nano-technology field using technology cluster analysis: A case study based on National R&D Programs in South Korea. Technovation, 27: 57-64.
Leenders R T, Van Engelen J M L, and Kratzer J (2003) Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1-2): 69-92.
Leoncini R, Maggioni M A, and Montresor S (1996) Intersectoral innovation flows and national technological systems: network analysis for comparing Italy and Germany. Research Policy, 25(3): 415-430.
Leoncini R and Montresor S (2005) Accounting for core and extra-core relationships in technological systems: a methodological proposal. Research Policy, 34(1): 83-100.
Linton J D (2009) IAMOT-Top50listofresearchersinthetechnologyinnovation managementfield. Technovation, 29: 235-236.
Linton J D (2006) Ranking of technology and innovation management journals. Technovation, 26: 285-287.
Meeus M T H, Oerlemans L A G, and Kenis P. (2008) Inter-organisational networks and innovation, In Nooteboom B and Stam E, (eds), Micro-foundations for innovation policy, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
Midgley D F, Morrison P D, and Roberts J H (1992) The effect of network structure in industrial diffusion processes. Research Policy, 21(6): 533-552.
Mina A, Ramlogan R, Tampubolon G, and Metcalfe J S (2007) Mapping evolutionary trajectories: Applications to the growth and transformation of medical knowledge. Research Policy, 36(5): 789-806.
Mowery D C, Oxley J E, and Silverman B S (1998) Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: Implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy, 27(5): 507-523.
Newman M E J (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS, 98: 404-409.
OECD (2008) Policy Brief: Open innovation in global networks. OECD,
Okamura K and Vonortas N S (2006) European Alliance and Knowledge Networks. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(5): 535-560.
Oliver A L and Ebers M (1998) Networking Network Studies: An Analysis of Conceptual Configurations in the Study of Inter-organizational Relationships. Organization Studies, 19(4): 549-583.
Orsenigo L, Pammolli F, and Riccaboni M (2001) Technological change and network dynamics: Lessons from the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 30(3): 485-508.
Park Y and Kim M S (1999) A Taxonomy of Industries Based on Knowledge Flow Structure. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(4): 541-549.
Penan H (1996) R & D strategy in a techno-economic network: Alzheimer's disease therapeutic strategies. Research Policy, 25(3): 337-358.
Pitt L, Merwe R v d, Berthon P, Salehi-Sangari E, and Barnes B R (2006) Swedish BioTech SMEs: The veiled values in online networks. Technovation, 26(5-6): 553-560.
Powell W W, Koput K W, and Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1): 116-145.
Powell W W, Koput K W, White D R, and Owen-Smith J (2005) Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4): 1132-1205.
Salman N and Saives A L (2005) Indirect networks: An intangible resource for biotechnology innovation. R and D Management, 35(2): 203-215.
Scott J (2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook Sage Publications Ltd., London.
Shibata N, Kajikawa Y, Takeda Y, and Matsushima K (2008) Detecting emerging research fronts based on topological measures in citation networks of scientific publications. Technovation, 28: 758-775.
Shih H Y (2008) Contagion effects of electronic commerce diffusion: Perspective from network analysis of industrial structure. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(1): 78-90.
Shih H Y and Chang T L S International diffusion of embodied and disembodied technology: A network analysis approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, In Press, Corrected Proof
Singer J and Helferich J (2008) Social network analysis can help managers build better connections between support groups and their customers . Research Technology Management, 51(1): 49-57.
Smith-Doerr L, Manev I M, and Rizova P (2004) The meaning of success: network position and the social construction of project outcomes in an R&D lab. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1-2): 51-81.
Soh P H and Roberts E B (2003) Networks of innovators: a longitudinal perspective. Research Policy, 32(9): 1569-1588.
Takeda Y, Kajikawa Y, Sakata I, and Matsushima K (2008) An analysis of geographical agglomeration and modularized industrial networks in a regional cluster: A case study at Yamagata prefecture in Japan. Technovation, 28(8): 531-539.
Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 35-67.
Verspagen B and Duysters G (2004) The small worlds of strategic technology alliances. Technovation, 24(7): 563-571.
Verspagen B and Werker C (2004) Keith Pavitt and the Invisible College of the Economics of Technology and Innovation. Research Policy, 33(9): 1419-1431.
von Wartburg I, Teichert T, and Rost K (2005) Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10): 1591-1607.
Wagner C S and Leydesdorff L (2005) Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10): 1608-1618.
Walker G, Kogut B, and Shan W (1997) Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8(2): 109-125.
Wasserman S and Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: Methods and applications Cambridge University Press, New York.
Watts D J and Strogatz S H (1998) Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature, 393(6684)
WRR (2008) Innovatie vernieuwd: Opening in viervoud. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
eContent Home
